United States District Court, D. Arizona
IN RE Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, Case Caption Case Number Plaintiff's Residence Case Caption Case Number
ORDER
David
G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge
The
parties have filed updated reports on Track 3 cases with
plaintiff profile form and service of process issues and
Track 3 cases for which no federal jurisdiction exists. Docs.
20066, 20209, 20210, 20618. The Court will dismiss some of
these cases without prejudice and transfer other cases to
appropriate districts.
A.
Cases without Federal Jurisdiction.
Federal
subject matter jurisdiction may be based on either federal
question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332. Courts “analyze federal
question jurisdiction with reference to the well-pleaded
complaint rule.” Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d
803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). Under that rule, “federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.”
Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp.,
Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint
must establish either that “federal law creates the
cause of action or that . . . the plaintiff's right to
relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
question of federal law.” Williston Basin
Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold
& Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir.
2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).
The
master complaint in this MDL asserts seventeen state law
claims. See Doc. 364 ¶¶ 166-349. Because
the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs'
right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on
resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Yokeno, 973 F.2d
at 809.
Subject
matter jurisdiction must therefore be based on diversity of
citizenship. See Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809.
District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases
between citizens of different states involving claims greater
than $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Section 1332
requires complete diversity between the parties - that is,
the citizenship of the plaintiff must be diverse from the
citizenship of each defendant. See Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
For
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant C. R. Bard,
Inc. is a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral
Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. Doc. 364 ¶¶
11-12; see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912
F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that “a
corporation is a citizen of any state where it is
incorporated and of the state where it has its principal
place of business”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)).
Complete diversity does not exist, therefore, where the
Plaintiff is a resident of either Arizona or New Jersey.
See Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d
1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Although diversity
jurisdiction provides an independent basis for federal
jurisdiction over state law claims, complete diversity is
lacking in this case because both [plaintiff] and [defendant]
are citizens of California.”).
The
parties' updated report identifies pending Track 3 cases
in which diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the
Plaintiff is either a resident of Arizona or New Jersey. Doc.
20210-1. In most of these cases, Plaintiffs agree to a
dismissal without prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs in some
cases oppose dismissal, but provide no reason why the cases
should not be dismissed given the lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See id.
A
district court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the action.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Snell v.
Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002)
(noting Rule 12(h)(3) permits a district court to
“raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction[]
sua sponte”); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230-31 (9th Cir.
2006) (an MDL “transferee judge exercises all the
powers of a district judge in the transferee district under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). The following
cases lack subject matter jurisdiction and are
dismissed without prejudice:
-
Case Caption
|
Case Number
|
Plaintiff's Residence
|
Stephen Albert v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-01010
|
Arizona
|
Patricia Borg v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-04221
|
Arizona
|
Annette Casey v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:16-cv-02558
|
Arizona
|
Frederick Hollister v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03237
|
Arizona
|
Chris Vandell v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:17-cv-01549
|
Arizona
|
James Chambers v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-04521
|
Arizona
|
Elena Ruiz v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-01645
|
Arizona
|
Sonja Lee Brumfield v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03124
|
Arizona
|
Catherine A. Bean v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03468
|
Arizona
|
James Dale Meredith v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03605
|
Arizona
|
Jan Louise Norquest v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-3609
|
Arizona
|
Faith Crawford v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-04259
|
Arizona
|
James Noa v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:17-cv-02389
|
Arizona
|
William Barben v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-2460
|
New Jersey
|
Giles Bartosch v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-00058
|
New Jersey
|
Edith Cruz v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-02432
|
New Jersey
|
Melissa Czarnecki v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:16-cv-01086
|
New Jersey
|
William Engh v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03080
|
New Jersey
|
Renee Harris v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:16-cv-01993
|
New Jersey
|
Robert James Maiore v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-02772
|
New Jersey
|
Carlos Mason v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03762
|
New Jersey
|
Erwin Melendez v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-01400
|
New Jersey
|
Charles Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-02544
|
New Jersey
|
Marilyn Ann Ratz v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-00574
|
New Jersey
|
Robert Russo v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-01287
|
New Jersey
|
Saad Sabir v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-00328
|
New Jersey
|
Katherine Varian v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-01611
|
New Jersey
|
Dianna L. Kubik v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-04293
|
New Jersey
|
Barbara S. Rossell v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:18-cv-04307
|
New Jersey
|
Sandra J. Farley v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-00844
|
New Jersey
|
William H. Jackson, IV v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-01559
|
New Jersey
|
Philip Merten v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-01637
|
New Jersey
|
Eileen O'Brien v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-01639
|
New Jersey
|
Kimberly Watkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-02312
|
New Jersey
|
Richard D. Mozgai v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-02444
|
New Jersey
|
Lisa M. Anderson v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03122
|
New Jersey
|
Carolyn G. Murray v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
|
2:19-cv-03607
|
New Jersey
|
Plaintiff
in Pickraum, CV-18-04338, is a New Jersey resident
who recently filed an amended short form complaint that
removes C. R. Bard as a Defendant. Doc. 20625. Because the
sole remaining Defendant, Bard Peripheral Vascular, is a
citizen of Arizona, diversity jurisdiction now exists in the
case. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d
1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “Rule 21
specifically allows for the dismissal of parties at any stage
of the action” and there “is no requirement that
diversity exist at the time of the filing of the
complaint”). The case will be transferred to the
District of New Jersey in a separate order. See
Docs. 19899 at 3-6, 20625 at 2.
Plaintiff
in Butterfield, CV-19-00395, a New Jersey resident,
states that she will stipulate to the dismissal of C. R.
Bard. Doc. 20210-1 at 8. Plaintiff shall file a stipulation
to dismiss C. R. Bard or an amended short form complaint
against only Bard Peripheral Vascular by October 31,
2019.
B.
Cases with Plaintiff Profile Form Issues.
As
noted, the parties filed updated reports on Track 3 cases
with plaintiff profile form ...